Except, while 'honoring the contracts', makes it far from 50/50 split. And the NHL is far from the only business to ask it's union to renegotiate contracts across the board. Most those unions don't have a membership making an average salary of $2.5 million. And you're right that the NHLPA is in its right to fight against that renegotiation, but the NHL is within its right to ask for it. All previous contracts were signed per the Old CBA with the knowledge that they could be altered by future agreed upon CBA's. And it's not a pure rollback that the NHL is asking for, they have put in a mechanism which while doesn't entirely protect old contracts, does give a lot more protection to them than they were originally asking.

First of all, this isn't about how the players make millions of dollars so it is ok to **** them over. Do you know how much the idiots from Jersey Shore make? Pointing to the players being rich already is a poor argument to justify screwing them over.

This is a new CBA and things can be altered, correct? So then why isn't it ok for the NHLPA to take the cap off the table? That is within their rights. The last CBA didn't say it had to carry over forever.

God help us if they do that, but at least the players are being reasonable and not doing it. They could though.

I'm also quite aware of the legal language that allows the contracts to be changed, but they were signed in good faith and just because that language allows them to legally do rollbacks, doesn't make it ethical.

You had an owner in Leipold in that room yesterday asking the players to give back money, after he just signed two guys to over 200m.

How much more disingenuous could he be?

Quote:

If I were Bettman, I'd tell the players to put their money where their mouth is. They keep on telling the league their proposal of $1.8 billion gauranteed + raises are fair because it's completely reasonable to expect the NHL to continue to grow at about 7.1%. Well then, this year, you get 53% of the cap, next year, you get 50%. If you're so confident in the growth rates you keep spouting to justify your deal, those numbers will keep you at your precious $1.8-1.88 billion number. Also, make sure the players with deals coming up in a year or 2 know that they will get less money under the no-rollback deal since teams will be more cap-strapped.

The owners want their cutbacks now. Which is total ******** and propaganda. They can make adjustments with their RS system to help carry the teams supposedly losing money, for the next two years.

The problem is they don't want to take from their own pockets to fix their mistakes, they want to take from the players (again).

The big market teams who are making a killing under the cap will now get further cutbacks and their profits will grow exponentially. But somehow, asking them to help out their partners is wrong, while extorting more money from the players is ok. Its like bizzarro world that people are too blind to see the obvious here. Jesus.

Once again, I am not going to put my ethics aside because I badly want to see hockey.

It truly amazes me how people can justify what the owners are doing. Either they have ethical standards like the owners, or they just want hockey so badly, they throw reason out of the window.

First of all, this isn't about how the players make millions of dollars so it is ok to **** them over. Do you know how much the idiots from Jersey Shore make? Pointing to the players being rich already is a poor argument to justify screwing them over.

This is a new CBA and things can be altered, correct? So then why isn't it ok for the NHLPA to take the cap off the table? That is within their rights. The last CBA didn't say it had to carry over forever.

God help us if they do that, but at least the players are being reasonable and not doing it. They could though.

I'm also quite aware of the legal language that allows the contracts to be changed, but they were signed in good faith and just because that language allows them to legally do rollbacks, doesn't make it ethical.

You had an owner in Leipold in that room yesterday asking the players to give back money, after he just signed two guys to over 200m.

How much more disingenuous could he be?

The owners want their cutbacks now. Which is total ******** and propaganda. They can make adjustments with their RS system to help carry the teams supposedly losing money, for the next two years.

The problem is they don't want to take from their own pockets to fix their mistakes, they want to take from the players (again).

The big market teams who are making a killing under the cap will now get further cutbacks and their profits will grow exponentially. But somehow, asking them to help out their partners is wrong, while extorting more money from the players is ok. Its like bizzarro world that people are too blind to see the obvious here. Jesus.

Once again, I am not going to put my ethics aside because I badly want to see hockey.

It truly amazes me how people can justify what the owners are doing. Either they have ethical standards like the owners, or they just want hockey so badly, they throw reason out of the window.

First of all, this isn't about how the players make millions of dollars so it is ok to **** them over. Do you know how much the idiots from Jersey Shore make? Pointing to the players being rich already is a poor argument to justify screwing them over.

This is a new CBA and things can be altered, correct? So then why isn't it ok for the NHLPA to take the cap off the table? That is within their rights. The last CBA didn't say it had to carry over forever.

God help us if they do that, but at least the players are being reasonable and not doing it. They could though.

I'm also quite aware of the legal language that allows the contracts to be changed, but they were signed in good faith and just because that language allows them to legally do rollbacks, doesn't make it ethical.

You had an owner in Leipold in that room yesterday asking the players to give back money, after he just signed two guys to over 200m.

How much more disingenuous could he be?

The owners want their cutbacks now. Which is total ******** and propaganda. They can make adjustments with their RS system to help carry the teams supposedly losing money, for the next two years.

The problem is they don't want to take from their own pockets to fix their mistakes, they want to take from the players (again).

The big market teams who are making a killing under the cap will now get further cutbacks and their profits will grow exponentially. But somehow, asking them to help out their partners is wrong, while extorting more money from the players is ok. Its like bizzarro world that people are too blind to see the obvious here. Jesus.

Once again, I am not going to put my ethics aside because I badly want to see hockey.

It truly amazes me how people can justify what the owners are doing. Either they have ethical standards like the owners, or they just want hockey so badly, they throw reason out of the window.

A few quick points before I go on about how unethical and how many morals I lack...

NHLPA doesn't actually propose getting rid of the cap because they know it will get them nowhere (though they have threatened it and have proposed delinking the cap..)

Secondly, if Leipold didn't give them the contracts, some other team gladly would have. They were working under the old CBA, and had no choice but to. The CBA dictated the rules each team had to follow, and to try to make their teams better; gm's signed players under the old CBA and to rates and terms that had become dictated under that CBA. I guess Leopold could have let some other team sign major free agents, but that wouldn't stop us from being here today, all it would mean is that the Wild are worse off going into the future.

Still, is there something sketchy given Leipold giving those contracts given his status on the negotiating committee? Was it not well known the NHL was going to be going after roll backs and a bigger share of revenue?

The owners aren't saints, by any stretch of the imagination. But to take such a stand based on ethics or morals makes me want to yell get off your high horse. No, I don't feel sympathy for players making an average salary of $2.5 million especially when one of their arguments seems to be that they lost so bad last time...the old CBA actually worked out quite well for them. But, yes, I don't exactly feel bad for the owners either, especially torontos, Montreal, Rangers, etc. I agree with you that revenue sharing must be implemented more effectively.", owners can't expect just the players to pay for the inequality in the league.

However, yes, in who I side with more, it's the owners. Not based on any moral high ground, or anything of the like, but because I think their proposal, especially their latest is better for the league. I think there's a serious issue financially when the Penguins, despite their fan support, tv ratings, sellouts, having the most marketable player in the world are still struggling to make a profit. And I doubt revenue sharing will help the Penguins. With that said, I think the owners should at least go towards a bit more gradual decrease (as said, use the players own growth assumptions against them and tell them no raises until we actually hit 50/50, hopefully in year 2.

It is a complicated issue; I'm not sure how you deal with existing contracts, but there must be some creative minds I the room that know the exact numbers and can figure something out.,

A few quick points before I go on about how unethical and how many morals I lack...

Your words, not mine. But justify away.

Quote:

NHLPA doesn't actually propose getting rid of the cap because they know it will get them nowhere (though they have threatened it and have proposed delinking the cap..)

If there is one man who could keep them together long enough to remove the cap, it is Fehr.

Nothing is out of the realm of possibility with him.

Quote:

Secondly, if Leipold didn't give them the contracts, some other team gladly would have. They were working under the old CBA, and had no choice but to. The CBA dictated the rules each team had to follow, and to try to make their teams better; gm's signed players under the old CBA and to rates and terms that had become dictated under that CBA. I guess Leopold could have let some other team sign major free agents, but that wouldn't stop us from being here today, all it would mean is that the Wild are worse off going into the future.

So basically, with a cap it is ok to mismanage finances? Sound reasoning there.

You may want to check out Leipold's statements from Feb when he cried poor. So either he was lying, or signed those contracts knowing full well he wouldn't have to pay the full amounts. Given his history in the past, I would say it is both A and B.

Quote:

Still, is there something sketchy given Leipold giving those contracts given his status on the negotiating committee? Was it not well known the NHL was going to be going after roll backs and a bigger share of revenue?

The owners aren't saints, by any stretch of the imagination. But to take such a stand based on ethics or morals makes me want to yell get off your high horse. No, I don't feel sympathy for players making an average salary of $2.5 million especially when one of their arguments seems to be that they lost so bad last time...the old CBA actually worked out quite well for them. But, yes, I don't exactly feel bad for the owners either, especially torontos, Montreal, Rangers, etc. I agree with you that revenue sharing must be implemented more effectively.", owners can't expect just the players to pay for the inequality in the league.

So basically you once again said it is ok to **** the players over because they make millions.

You have a high percentage of players who took hometown discounts to stay with their clubs and help the team with the cap. Look no further than the Pens with guys like Crosby, Malkin, Orpik, Neal, etc.

You telling me it is ethical to screw the other players over is total BS, let alone stand up guys who left money on the table.

Quote:

However, yes, in who I side with more, it's the owners. Not based on any moral high ground, or anything of the like, but because I think their proposal, especially their latest is better for the league. I think there's a serious issue financially when the Penguins, despite their fan support, tv ratings, sellouts, having the most marketable player in the world are still struggling to make a profit. And I doubt revenue sharing will help the Penguins. With that said, I think the owners should at least go towards a bit more gradual decrease (as said, use the players own growth assumptions against them and tell them no raises until we actually hit 50/50, hopefully in year 2.

How many times do I have to say this? The players said they will go to 50/50 if the owners honor their contracts.

The owners don't want any money out of their pockets to honor the current contracts they signed. Again, it isn't ethical, no matter how you try to spin and justify it.

Quote:

It is a complicated issue; I'm not sure how you deal with existing contracts, but there must be some creative minds I the room that know the exact numbers and can figure something out.,

It's only complicated because the owners don't want to pay for their mistakes.

Split system to handle existing contracts and new ones going fwd. or use a sliding scale to reach 50/50.

You may want to check out Leipold's statements from Feb when he cried poor. So either he was lying, or signed those contracts knowing full well he wouldn't have to pay the full amounts. Given his history in the past, I would say it is both A and B.
.

That's it right there. He knew damn well he was throwing out deals he had no intention of honoring. I wonder what Parise and Weber are saying to eachother behind closed doors right now about their new boss.

The whole "he was negotiating within the old CBA" argument is so weak. Like he didn't know that CBA was about to expire and that there was a new CBA in mind that would have significant differences. Like he hadn't been thoroughly briefed by Bettman every step of the way. It's widely known Bettman prepared for the last lockout years in advance, and no doubt the same is true of this one. The owners all knew what kind of changes they and Bettman wanted, and they knew how far Bettman was willing to go to get there. He'd only done it twice before and had more games lost to work stoppage under his watch than any other sports league.

Gary has all the gullible sheep out there eating right out of his hand. This piece over at The Hockey Writers sums it up perfectly:

The players' proposals take 5 more years to get to 50%. Not only do they guarantee raises for the players every year (with the possible exception of 2015-16 where salaries remain the same for one year under one of the proposals), but they give the owners only a single season of 50/50 before the CBA expires. And there's no cost certainty. It's based on projected revenue growth; not on percentages of HRR. That's not a realistic offer.

Care to take a guess as to why the third offer proposed in those meetings wasn't addressed in Mirtle's article? Because the idea that Fehr offered a deal that goes to 50/50 immediately while guaranteeing full payment of all contracts is a lie (that's right, Cap'n Bettman's not the only liar in this thing). If it was mathematically possible, the CBA would have been settled in September. But unfortunately, 50% of $3.47 billion (the very generously projected revenue for this coming season) is well short of the $1.88 billion the players made last year. I don't know what Fehr might have proposed in this mystical 3rd proposal, but it sure as hell isn't what he claimed.

On Thursday, he walked into a significant meeting with several NHL owners 90 minutes late, plopped down two single sheets of paper, each with a different skeleton proposal to the owners that didn’t include any ideas on systemic issues, then verbally delivered a third proposal with no accompanying paperwork. For all three proposals, he acknowledged to the owners he hadn’t actually “run the numbers.”

Pardon the cliche, but Donald Fehr sure does sound like a class act, huh? At least he didn't walk into the meeting wearing sweat pants, I guess.

“The so called 50-50 deal, plus honoring current contracts proposed by the NHL Players’ Association earlier today is being misrepresented. It is not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely a 56- to 57-percent deal in Year One and never gets to 50 percent during the proposed five-year term of the agreement. The proposal contemplates paying the Players approximately $650 million outside of the Players’ Share. In effect, the Union is proposing to change the accounting rules to be able to say ‘50-50,’ when in reality it is not. The Union told us that they had not yet ‘run the numbers.’ We did.”

The players' proposals take 5 more years to get to 50%. Not only do they guarantee raises for the players every year (with the possible exception of 2015-16 where salaries remain the same for one year under one of the proposals), but they give the owners only a single season of 50/50 before the CBA expires. And there's no cost certainty. It's based on projected revenue growth; not on percentages of HRR. That's not a realistic offer.

Care to take a guess as to why the third offer proposed in those meetings wasn't addressed in Mirtle's article? Because the idea that Fehr offered a deal that goes to 50/50 immediately while guaranteeing full payment of all contracts is a lie (that's right, Cap'n Bettman's not the only liar in this thing). If it was mathematically possible, the CBA would have been settled in September. But unfortunately, 50% of $3.47 billion (the very generously projected revenue for this coming season) is well short of the $1.88 billion the players made last year. I don't know what Fehr might have proposed in this mystical 3rd proposal, but it sure as hell isn't what he claimed.

Pardon the cliche, but Donald Fehr sure does sound like a class act, huh? At least he didn't walk into the meeting wearing sweat pants, I guess.

As I keep saying, they can guarantee the current contracts and get to 50/50 right off the bat. You don't need to defy mathematic laws to do it either. Current deals get grandfathered in, while all contracts signed under the new CBA are calculated at 50%. The league just uses variable percentages to determine each set group of contracts.

Why do people assume all contracts have to be calculated under the same percentages?

As I keep saying, they can guarantee the current contracts and get to 50/50 right off the bat. You don't need to defy mathematic laws to do it either. Current deals get grandfathered in, while all contracts signed under the new CBA are calculated at 50%. The league just uses variable percentages to determine each set group of contracts.

Why do people assume all contracts have to be calculated under the same percentages?

So first and foremost, almost all of the contracts that will be in effect for the upcoming (hopefully) season were signed under the old CBA. There's too much money already committed to bring this coming season anywhere near 50% without either deferring payments or cutting the value of the contracts. Second, your idea, with some adjustments, would be an excellent way for the owners to try to fracture the PA by creating 2 different classes of player: those with long-term contracts vs. upcoming free agents whose contract values will be depressed so pre-existing long-term contracts can be paid in full.

The problem, however, is if you read the Bill Daly quote, you'll see that this is nothing like what the PA proposed. Apparently, they offered to take well over 50% but to change the accounting terminology or the definition of HRR or something like that so they can say it's 50/50 in complete disregard for reality. In case we're still trying to keep track; Fehr's characterization of this proposal as giving the owners 50/50 immediately is a lie.

So first and foremost, almost all of the contracts that will be in effect for the upcoming (hopefully) season were signed under the old CBA. There's too much money already committed to bring this coming season anywhere near 50% without either deferring payments or cutting the value of the contracts. Second, your idea, with some adjustments, would be an excellent way for the owners to try to fracture the PA by creating 2 different classes of player: those with long-term contracts vs. upcoming free agents whose contract values will be depressed so pre-existing long-term contracts can be paid in full.

Of course most contracts for this season will be in effect from under the old CBA. That is why this year is so important for the players.

As for a split in the union, there is already a number of tiers already. No union will ever get a deal that makes all of it's members happy. However, there will be more players who stand to gain substantially from this type of deal, than those who will not.

It's a moot point anyway because the NHL has zero intention of fully honoring existing contacts.

Which is why as everyone and their mother knows, a sliding scale is the fair answer for both sides: 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50

Quote:

The problem, however, is if you read the Bill Daly quote, you'll see that this is nothing like what the PA proposed. Apparently, they offered to take well over 50% but to change the accounting terminology or the definition of HRR or something like that so they can say it's 50/50 in complete disregard for reality. In case we're still trying to keep track; Fehr's characterization of this proposal as giving the owners 50/50 immediately is a lie. [/FONT]

Oh, you mean how Fehr is ****ing around with Bettman and the league? Ya, pretty funny ****.

When an obsessively detailed man drops half ass offers on your table, then says he didn't bother to check the calculations, it creates confusion, anger, a sense of unpredictability, and most of all fear.

Hopefully he doesn't push too far, but since this is Fehr, no one knows what he truly is up to.

The players' proposals take 5 more years to get to 50%. Not only do they guarantee raises for the players every year (with the possible exception of 2015-16 where salaries remain the same for one year under one of the proposals), but they give the owners only a single season of 50/50 before the CBA expires. And there's no cost certainty. It's based on projected revenue growth; not on percentages of HRR. That's not a realistic offer.

Care to take a guess as to why the third offer proposed in those meetings wasn't addressed in Mirtle's article? Because the idea that Fehr offered a deal that goes to 50/50 immediately while guaranteeing full payment of all contracts is a lie (that's right, Cap'n Bettman's not the only liar in this thing). If it was mathematically possible, the CBA would have been settled in September. But unfortunately, 50% of $3.47 billion (the very generously projected revenue for this coming season) is well short of the $1.88 billion the players made last year. I don't know what Fehr might have proposed in this mystical 3rd proposal, but it sure as hell isn't what he claimed.

Pardon the cliche, but Donald Fehr sure does sound like a class act, huh? At least he didn't walk into the meeting wearing sweat pants, I guess.

That makes sense (why he didn't offer specifics on their "50/50 but honor the contracts" deal). He didn't run the numbers because he knew they were wrong / way off the mark. Fehr is guy who talks out both sides of his mouth for sure. We should all acknowledge that.

If there is one man who could keep them together long enough to remove the cap, it is Fehr.

Nothing is out of the realm of possibility with him.

So basically, with a cap it is ok to mismanage finances? Sound reasoning there.

You may want to check out Leipold's statements from Feb when he cried poor. So either he was lying, or signed those contracts knowing full well he wouldn't have to pay the full amounts. Given his history in the past, I would say it is both A and B.

So basically you once again said it is ok to **** the players over because they make millions.

You have a high percentage of players who took hometown discounts to stay with their clubs and help the team with the cap. Look no further than the Pens with guys like Crosby, Malkin, Orpik, Neal, etc.

You telling me it is ethical to screw the other players over is total BS, let alone stand up guys who left money on the table.

How many times do I have to say this? The players said they will go to 50/50 if the owners honor their contracts.

The owners don't want any money out of their pockets to honor the current contracts they signed. Again, it isn't ethical, no matter how you try to spin and justify it.

It's only complicated because the owners don't want to pay for their mistakes.

Split system to handle existing contracts and new ones going fwd. or use a sliding scale to reach 50/50.

No player is being screwed over, cut the rhetoric and maybe the discussion can actually advance some more. Regardless of what CBA is signed, and they will only sign one if the players agree to it, the players will still be making an average salary of well over a million, probably still over $2 million.

As far as 'misfinancing' goes, as a Penguins fan, I would think you should be all too aware of the conundrum middle and smaller markets find themselves in. Either take a chance and go after the big names hoping that icing a good team will bring about more fans and revenue or act as a farm team to bigger clubs and lose revenue and fans. Neither is attractive, the salary cap was brought out to try to fix this issue but GMs found a way around it for the most part (forcing not only rich but also poor teams to participate in such behavior if they wanted to improve their team.

And I really don't care what Leipold said. My take on this isn't based on the actions of 1 or 2 owners or even 30. I simply care what will be better for the league, and the current 57/43 split is not it and 50/50 is the most obvious endpoint. There will probably have to be some compromise on how to get to that end point. But the split system as proposed by the NHLPA is not going to work, as that doesn't bring it towards a 50/50 split until nearly the very end of the agreement (if at all). Players knew what was coming when they were out there negotiating these deals, yet they didn't even start talking to the league about a new CBA until August.

And you keep on saying the players will go to 50/50 if the owners no our existing contracts, but fail to realize that it's not actually 50/50 in any of the NHLPA proposals apart from possibly the last 1 or 2 years, with the first 2 pro sale delinking revenues and guaranteeing themselves nice raises.

As I keep saying, they can guarantee the current contracts and get to 50/50 right off the bat. You don't need to defy mathematic laws to do it either. Current deals get grandfathered in, while all contracts signed under the new CBA are calculated at 50%. The league just uses variable percentages to determine each set group of contracts.

Why do people assume all contracts have to be calculated under the same percentages?

That is not a 50/50 split. The split will still be 57:43 or somewhere close to that for the first year and whether that ever actually gets to 50/50 in any of the 5 years is completely up in the air. It's a bs proposal and anyone trying to call it 50/50 immediately is way off base. It's not a 50/50 split when the players will still be getting 56-57% of the revenues.

That's it right there. He knew damn well he was throwing out deals he had no intention of honoring. I wonder what Parise and Weber are saying to eachother behind closed doors right now about their new boss.

The whole "he was negotiating within the old CBA" argument is so weak. Like he didn't know that CBA was about to expire and that there was a new CBA in mind that would have significant differences. Like he hadn't been thoroughly briefed by Bettman every step of the way. It's widely known Bettman prepared for the last lockout years in advance, and no doubt the same is true of this one. The owners all knew what kind of changes they and Bettman wanted, and they knew how far Bettman was willing to go to get there. He'd only done it twice before and had more games lost to work stoppage under his watch than any other sports league.

Gary has all the gullible sheep out there eating right out of his hand. This piece over at The Hockey Writers sums it up perfectly:

Yes, he knew the old CBA was about to expire. I'm not sure how that changes the point. It hadn't expired yet; he wanted to make his team better, if he didn't sign the players to that deal, some other team would have. It's that simple. He did what he had to do at the time to improve his team in the market that was in place at the time. He couldn't have waited until the new CBA to sign them; they would have been scooped up by another team.

No player is being screwed over, cut the rhetoric and maybe the discussion can actually advance some more. Regardless of what CBA is signed, and they will only sign one if the players agree to it, the players will still be making an average salary of well over a million, probably still over $2 million.

The discussion isn't going to advance when we share two polar opposite ethical viewpoints.

Just because players are making millions, doesn't mean it is right for the owners not to honor the contracts they signed.

You continue to use the fact they make millions as an excuse to justify what the owners are doing.

Basically your arguement is "they make millions, so it's ok".

Right.

Quote:

As far as 'misfinancing' goes, as a Penguins fan, I would think you should be all too aware of the conundrum middle and smaller markets find themselves in. Either take a chance and go after the big names hoping that icing a good team will bring about more fans and revenue or act as a farm team to bigger clubs and lose revenue and fans. Neither is attractive, the salary cap was brought out to try to fix this issue but GMs found a way around it for the most part (forcing not only rich but also poor teams to participate in such behavior if they wanted to improve their team.

It is well known that you are going to pay over-inflated salaries on the FA market. I can think of only a handful of big name UFA signings that brought a team a SC.

That is why teams need to build through the draft (no cap on scouting) and make the necessary trades and fiscal UFA signings to round out their teams.

Developing a talented farm and steady stream of young NHL ready talent is the key to winning in a cap world, not spending big bucks on over inflated contracts.

Lets see how happy Wild fans are with those contracts in a few yrs.

Quote:

And I really don't care what Leipold said. My take on this isn't based on the actions of 1 or 2 owners or even 30. I simply care what will be better for the league, and the current 57/43 split is not it and 50/50 is the most obvious endpoint. There will probably have to be some compromise on how to get to that end point. But the split system as proposed by the NHLPA is not going to work, as that doesn't bring it towards a 50/50 split until nearly the very end of the agreement (if at all). Players knew what was coming when they were out there negotiating these deals, yet they didn't even start talking to the league about a new CBA until August.

Of course a 50/50 split is reasonable, but for the tenth time, it doesn't have to start there in year one.

Hence the reason the players are telling the league to fist themselves.

Quote:

And you keep on saying the players will go to 50/50 if the owners no our existing contracts, but fail to realize that it's not actually 50/50 in any of the NHLPA proposals apart from possibly the last 1 or 2 years, with the first 2 pro sale delinking revenues and guaranteeing themselves nice raises.

I'm not taking their proposals seriously right now. I've said that over and over. Fehr is playing mind games with Bettman right now.

I find it funny as hell, but obviously I won't if Fehr keeps playing games beyond next week. I fully admit there is a chance he could push this for months until he gets the best deal. That's why the NHL would be wise to go for the fair offer of 54 52, etc.

Fehr may be a liar or the devil or whatever ppl choose to call him, but so is Bettman and Uncle Gary brought this on himself and the fans.

That is not a 50/50 split. The split will still be 57:43 or somewhere close to that for the first year and whether that ever actually gets to 50/50 in any of the 5 years is completely up in the air. It's a bs proposal and anyone trying to call it 50/50 immediately is way off base. It's not a 50/50 split when the players will still be getting 56-57% of the revenues.

How is it a BS proposal? Any contracts signed under the new CBA go to 50%.

Are you saying in five years there will be no new contracts signed?

I severly doubt that happens.

And again, what concessions are the owners offering the players for dropping to 50/50?

I haven't seen any.

Funny how the owners having to honor the contracts they signed is BS, but forcing the players to drop 7% of their share, with no concessions from the owners is somehow not BS?

How is it a BS proposal? Any contracts signed under the new CBA go to 50%.

Are you saying in five years there will be no new contracts signed?

I severly doubt that happens.

And again, what concessions are the owners offering the players for dropping to 50/50?

I haven't seen any.

Funny how the owners having to honor the contracts they signed is BS, but forcing the players to drop 7% of their share, with no concessions from the owners is somehow not BS?

I didn't say any of that last paragraph I've already said they'll likely have to work some way of lessoning the blow, opposed to a straight rollback. The league tried with their 'make whole' provision, but from my understanding, that will work to actually take the players share below 50% in years 3 and a few beyond, so yes, I see why the NHLPA isn't jumping at that one. However, it's BS to call it 50/50 immediately. There may be a mechanism there to eventually get it to 50/50 (though it's up in the air whether or not that would even happen in the short 5 year lifespan of the deal) but it's certainly not a 50/50 split immediately. It's a 56/44 split, at best immediately. That's why it's b.s. There's absolutely no gaurantee it ever gets to 50/50, labelling it as a 50/50 split immediately is BS, and even if it does get to actual 50/50, it would likely only be for the final year of the CBA.

And that's the other thing that bugs me about the players proposals. You keep hearing NHL players whine about "if we give in now, what's to stop the NHL from doing this next time"?...Well, if you're concerned about that, why the hell do you keep making such short CBA terms compared to the owners. It's the owners trying to propose the longer deals.

I didn't say any of that last paragraph I've already said they'll likely have to work some way of lessoning the blow, opposed to a straight rollback. The league tried with their 'make whole' provision, but from my understanding, that will work to actually take the players share below 50% in years 3 and a few beyond, so yes, I see why the NHLPA isn't jumping at that one. However, it's BS to call it 50/50 immediately. There may be a mechanism there to eventually get it to 50/50 (though it's up in the air whether or not that would even happen in the short 5 year lifespan of the deal) but it's certainly not a 50/50 split immediately. It's a 56/44 split, at best immediately. That's why it's b.s. There's absolutely no gaurantee it ever gets to 50/50, labelling it as a 50/50 split immediately is BS, and even if it does get to actual 50/50, it would likely only be for the final year of the CBA.

If you go back to my original argument, you will see that I said Bettman is a chronic liar, so I'm not worried about anything that comes out of his mouth. I use good old fashioned common sense and it is obvious they can't fit in an 82 game schedule after early Nov, so I know this week is ultra important.

Other BS he has said is obvious lies and I just roll my eyes. Fehr as some people think, is the anticrist. Fine, doesn't really matter to me. My whole point all along is that both sides are posturing.

You had a PA leader with integrity in Goodenow, but that didn't stop Uncle Gary from lying through his teeth eight years ago and locking the players out then and ten years prior. So I'm not sure why Fehr being the antichrist makes any difference here. Especially when the players are simply asking for what is right.

However, there is a deal to be made there, which is why I'm optimistic.

Quote:

And that's the other thing that bugs me about the players proposals. You keep hearing NHL players whine about "if we give in now, what's to stop the NHL from doing this next time"?...Well, if you're concerned about that, why the hell do you keep making such short CBA terms compared to the owners. It's the owners trying to propose the longer deals.

Five years vs six years? Not sure how one year makes a bigger difference.

Besides, those three offer were done to create fear and confusion with the owners. A meticulous man like Fehr doesn't "forget to check" his numbers. Please. He came right out and said they aren't interested in talking about UFA, ELC, etc from their Tusday proposal. Why? It means he isn't taking their offer seriously. That creates frustration and anger... Shows he has no sense of urgency to get a deal done before Oct 26th.

None of us know what his intentions are, that is worriesome to both the league and fans. So the longer Fehr keeps doing this, the more likely he is to get the league to bend more at the eleventh hour.

Or maybe he doesn't care about that date (which seems foolish given that the current cancelled schedule adds up to more losses than the rollbacks).

who cares about the players? why do we care who is right or wrong? save your pity party for something that actually matters-- there's more than enough sad stories in the media pertaining to people who are actually enduring real suffering due to the economic climate. the "put yourself in the players shoes" argument is worthless. millions of people in america and canada have had to take significant pay cuts in order to stay employed, with much less disposable income. nhl players and owners will get no pity from me.

who cares about the players? why do we care who is right or wrong? save your pity party for something that actually matters-- there's more than enough sad stories in the media pertaining to people who are actually enduring real suffering due to the economic climate. the "put yourself in the players shoes" argument is worthless. millions of people in america and canada have had to take significant pay cuts in order to stay employed, with much less disposable income. nhl players and owners will get no pity from me.

i'm more concerned about what benefits the penguins.

Guess what, the players don't care about your pity. Get that through your head.

Just because you prefer to ignore a situation, doesn't mean the problems will go away. Are you really that naive?

World hunger and the economic climate have nothing to do with this dispute. Do you think players see a homeless person and think "man I make too much". They know the money they are losing is going into billionaire's pockets, not to help the less fortunate. If you don't get that, the players don't care.

I've explained ad nauseum why the players are pissed and rightfully so. My opinion that they are getting screwed doesn't matter to the owners, but the fact the players think they are getting screwed DOES matter.

So if you think because you "don't care" and "they make too much" the players will suddenly decide its cool to let the owners cut their share with no concessions, pass the herb.

Guess what, the players don't care about your pity. Get that through your head.

Just because you prefer to ignore a situation, doesn't mean the problems will go away. Are you really that naive?

World hunger and the economic climate have nothing to do with this dispute. Do you think players see a homeless person and think "man I make too much". They know the money they are losing is going into billionaire's pockets, not to help the less fortunate. If you don't get that, the players don't care.

I've explained ad nauseum why the players are pissed and rightfully so. My opinion that they are getting screwed doesn't matter to the owners, but the fact the players think they are getting screwed DOES matter.

So if you think because you "don't care" and "they make too much" the players will suddenly decide its cool to let the owners cut their share with no concessions, pass the herb.

if the players don't want our pity, then why are they releasing those impassioned youtube videos directed at fans?

Quote:

"I sit here from Gand Bend, Ontario putting a pen to my heart and writing on paper what bleeds out. My name is Krys Barch. I have played approximately 5 1/2 years in the NHL and have worked for every second of it. I haven't been a 1st round pick, bonus baby or a son of a hall of famer. I have made it through sweating, bleeding, cut Achilles, broken hands, concussions, broken orbital bones, 8 teeth knocked out, etc, etc, etc.
"I sit in front of a fire, 8 OV deep and starting a bottle of Porte that will assist in the translations of my emotions to words! No different than a truck driver, farmer or line worker, I have a shot and a beer. Not to deal with the days ahead but to ease the nerves from what my body has endured the days before.
"I sit here with both my boys sleeping and my wife due with our 3rd. My thoughts racing on what I can conquer tomorrow to get our family ahead. Sometimes, wondering if I should have existed when a word and a gun solidified and solved all problems. I feel the Wild West would more simplified than the world we live in now when an employer who makes billions of dollars and a league with record revenues can tell me that I can't do the things that my heart tells my me to do!
"All what my heart tells me to do far surpasses what my body has endured. As I write this I dive deeper and deeper into my bottle of Porte giving wider views to the depths of my heart. As my pen warms from the fire, Neil Young and a fall Canadian night, I wonder how this work stoppage effects the owners?
"I wonder if the owners of Boston, New York, Washington, etc, etc, have endured any of the injuries that I or any other player in the NHL have endured. Still they probably sit their smoking the same brand of cigar, sipping the same cognac, and going on vacation. To one of five houses they own. While we sit here knowing they want to take 20% of our paychecks. One half to 3/4 of my peers will have to work for the next 50 years of their lives.
"Congratulations to the lucky select few that I have played with who have made salaries that they can choose to do whatever they want when they are done. But I have played most who do not!
"If the NHL wants to teams in the south or struggling markets than the players along with the financially well to do teams need to start working together. Or they need to start to move teams to the North where they will make money. The system allows the owners to continually take money from the players contract after contract where eventually over 40 some years the owners will have 80% of revenue. The only way to stop the work stoppages long into the future is fix the root cause of the problems.
"The lockout is a procedure to take from the players to pay for the NHL mistakes. Let not allow the NHL to make any more mistakes.
"Let the league and the players to come together to fix the mistakes that have been made and make sure non are made in the future. Let's get a deal where the owners, players, and fans benefit from. We're we can be sitting around in beautiful Canadian falls around a fire playing and watching the game we love.
"Here's to the truth and our next conversation. As always speaking from my heart! Goodnight! Like me or hate me I speak what comes from my heart!"

why was this released, if not to garner sympathy?

seems to me that the players care quite a bit what the fans think of them.

Care to take a guess as to why the third offer proposed in those meetings wasn't addressed in Mirtle's article? Because the idea that Fehr offered a deal that goes to 50/50 immediately while guaranteeing full payment of all contracts is a lie (that's right, Cap'n Bettman's not the only liar in this thing). If it was mathematically possible, the CBA would have been settled in September. But unfortunately, 50% of $3.47 billion (the very generously projected revenue for this coming season) is well short of the $1.88 billion the players made last year. I don't know what Fehr might have proposed in this mystical 3rd proposal, but it sure as hell isn't what he claimed.

a) For one, because P3 was by far the most complicated of the proposals and I didn't have the full accounting until the following afternoon

b) Secondly, that proposal had by far the least chance of gaining any traction and was really more a response to the owners' "make whole" provision than anything

c) Fehr and the PA never claimed the deal was 50-50 immediately. It was 50-50 on new contracts immediately. Obvious that's how it functions

who cares about the players? why do we care who is right or wrong? save your pity party for something that actually matters-- there's more than enough sad stories in the media pertaining to people who are actually enduring real suffering due to the economic climate. the "put yourself in the players shoes" argument is worthless. millions of people in america and canada have had to take significant pay cuts in order to stay employed, with much less disposable income. nhl players and owners will get no pity from me.

i'm more concerned about what benefits the penguins.

WRT to pitying athletes I agree 112%. That part of this is nonsense. All this stuff about "oh their career only lasts 6 or 7 years, then what?!" In those 6 or 7 years most of those players will make far more income than probably 85-90% of the population will make in the course of 30 or 40 years, including savings. Hell you could play in the NHL for 3 or 4 years, make the league average, and if you're smart about spending and investing, you could have a safety net for the rest of your life.

The only "fairness" part of it comes from the obvious: there are (including part-timers) probably about 1000 NHL players who have to split 50% of a pie. Some of that pie has been removed ahead of time from the definition of "pie" so that the players get 0% of it (ostensibly to cover certain costs of doing business). Then there are 30 owners who split the other 50%. And while they have costs, the profit the owners make is still way beyond what even the best paid players make every season.

But in either case no one should feel sympathy for any of them. It's not about sympathy; it's about basic math and a balanced agreement give the ratios and splits so that we the fans (the reason the league exists) can watch hockey.